“Diffusion
of Responsibility” carries this definition: “a sociopsychological
phenomenon whereby a person is less likely to take responsibility for
an action or inaction when others are present.” This is not a new
concept, of course. It was recognized and discussed by philosophers and
students of human nature for thousands of years. It was used in discussing
different forms of State and government to explain which is better under
what circumstances, including the United States. Let us consider the phenomena
of Diffusion of Responsibility and relate it to our constitution
and government.

Illustration
Concerning ‘U.S. Senator, Mr. Common Fiction’

A few
members of the U.S. Senate introduce a bill, consisting of thousands of
pages. The Committee initially reviewing the bill recommends it be discussed
at large. It goes to the floor for debate and consideration, and then
for vote.

Hearings
are held and expert witnesses testify. Corporations present scientific
data for consideration. Credible assurances are made that the bill is
necessary and the wording is accurate to meet real-life needs. Private
and government attorneys testify about the bill’s constitutionality—all
of the government attorneys holding that the bill is constitutional, but
a few reputable private attorneys insist it is not.

Major
media sources make the bill appear one way; alternative media states near
the opposite. Limbaugh disagrees with Beck; Hannity disagrees with Napolitano;
and vice versa. Fox News shows polls that 45% of Americans polled oppose
it and 55% support it. The political party elites are using every tool
to influence the vote.

Constituents
on both sides of the issue voice their opinion in support or opposition—but
only .05% of the constituents contacted the Senators to express their
opinion. However, hundreds of Lobby groups have bombarded the Senators,
consuming the staff’s time to deal with anything else. Among the
Tea Party polls, 20% support it; the rest oppose it. The Republican Party
supports it in large part; the Democrat Party opposes it in part.

There
is not much opportunity to debate the bill because the docket is full,
time is short, and the session is about to end; but it “must be
decided before recess”. There are some questionable provisions in
particular (in conjunction with some other laws that exist but are not
discussed or known) which make the bill covertly unconstitutional.

Among
the chaos, Senator Common Fiction, who claims to be a “constitutional
conservative”, has to make a decision. In reality, Senator Fiction
is not certain about the bill’s constitutionality but thinks it
may not be constitutional. At the least, he knows the bill will continue
to grow the federal government—a trend he has criticized openly.
But the pressure at every point is building; and if he does not vote a
certain way, the political backlash will be too great. All the while,
he considers that his reelection may be undermined if he votes the wrong
way. In fact, the uppers in his party told him if he does not vote in
favor of this bill, then it is conceivable they will not be able to find
enough party support for his upcoming bill—which of course will
tremendously increase commerce in his district, thus virtually guaranteeing
his reelection.

Senator
Common Fiction’s thought process:

“My
vote will not decide the fate of this bill or its treatment in the future;
it certainly won’t destroy America and the constitution in toto.
We are a strong, freedom-loving people; we will never let these things
get out of hand; we must live to fight another day.

“My
constituents who contacted me supported this bill--for the most part;
and the ones who don’t like it have opposed me from the beginning
anyway, so they will not contribute to my next campaign regardless; plus,
the media doesn’t like them so their opposition will not be publicized.
Since I haven’t heard from the rest of my constituents, I feel certain
they are not too concerned or else they would have contacted me.

“There
are 99 other Senators involved in this process, and most of the Senators
in my party support it. The House must consider and vote on this bill
too. Many feel the House will not pass it, alternatives already being
drafted. Plus, the President said he will veto the bill in its current
form.

“In
addition, there has been talk about non-profit organizations preparing
and filing lawsuits against this bill if it passed, so it would wind up
in federal court any way; and since the Supreme Court is the ‘final
arbiter’ of the constitution, they can determine the fate of this
bill if they choose to take the case—if it even becomes law, which
I don’t think it will.

“And
besides, the people can always nullify the federal government’s
actions by passing a constitutional amendment—if it means that much
to them. Sure, it is the most difficult form of redress in the constitution;
but still, it is their right and power. And as they say, where the people
do not oppose and change the law, they are deemed to have consented.

“Since
the governor and attorney general of my State go along with federal laws
fairly easily because of their view of the ‘Supremacy Clause’,
I expect they will do nothing about this bill if it becomes law. I can
say the same thing about our State legislators. The State government will
not draw any more attention to this bill than lobbyists are already doing.
I am safe there.

“What
I cannot do is sacrifice my hard-earned political position in the Senate,
which took me 15 years of climbing the political ladder, for this one
vote. After all, I will do more good for the country by staying where
I am and not jeopardizing my own position too much. Two steps forward,
one step back is a better approach to politics. I can always attach a
rationale reason for why I voted for this bill.”

“Ok.
It’s settled: I’ll vote yes.”

‘Diffusion
of Responsibility’ Inherent in the United States Constitution

The
United States Constitution separates the function and power of the federal
government into three branches. Each branch has distinct purposes, duties,
and responsibilities. Within each branch, there are multiple parts which
comprise its unit. The law’s existence and the constitution’s
enforcement rely on each branch. In addition, there is a fourth “branch”
within the structure: the people. Where the three branches have collectively
or individually failed, the people can remedy and cure by replacing the
officers or amending the constitution.

Theoretically,
no one action unilaterally taken will irretrievably damage the constitution
or country. It requires everyone’s “consent” (e.g. lack
of physical opposition) to move in that direction. Inherent within the
federal system is a diffusion of responsibility and power, horizontally
and vertically. Any one person within the diffused system cannot be identified
solely as the responsible party to a denounced action. Politicians have
a lot of cover under which to hide and seemingly have faithful supporters
regardless.

While
this separation has advantages, it has some inherent flaws. These flaws
namely involve (1) the inability of the people to identify the sources
of the political problems, and (2) the tendency of office-holders to rely
on the system to correct errors or biases in their own judgment. Both
of these characteristics pull the system in a direction not necessarily
created or intended in the constitution.
Remedying problems can be quite daunting when the problems have cemented
and multiplied over decades. In part, this is why we can continually elect
Republicans and Democrats to replace each other but no substantive improvement
is seen in the general direction of politics.

Comparative
Facts: The Urinating Marines

A video
of four U.S. Marines urinating on dead bodies of the “enemy”
has been recently released, and the world is talking about it. As reported
in the Miami Herald, psychologist Eric Zillmer discusses how easy
it can become for soldiers engaged in war to violate laws and decency
standards when there are a lot of participants and direct responsibility
is diffused. Zillmer says, “the inhibitions against such misconduct
tend to fall away as the number of participants increases, a phenomenon
he calls ‘diffusion of responsibility’”
(emphasis added). Still, some in the federal government are demanding
punishment of the soldiers, including
those under Obama’s direction.

While
the Marine’s actions may deserve reprimand, the government’s
hypocrisy is blaring: when a politician ignores or even disdains the Supreme
Law of the Land, their violation is masked in terms of “the living
constitution” or “reasonable disagreement”; but when
a soldier violates a Geneva Convention rule of much less consequence to
the liberty and freedom of people throughout the world, people cry out
for justice. If you ask me, righteous indignation should be focused on
our own politicians at home.

Application
and Conclusion

Senator
Common Fiction feels comfortable enough to vote for a constitutionally
questionable bill because his responsibility is diffused amongst the system
itself. He does not treat his position as an individual fiduciary duty,
such that the fate of the country rests in his hands alone. Instead, he
treats it with pure statistics, pragmatics, and economics. Where everyone
else acts the same, it is little wonder why “politics as usual”
is the rule, while the constitution continually reeks of hot, politician
urine.

This
diffusion of responsibility takes place on all levels. Observe the number
of places Senator Common Fiction diffuses his responsibility in that simple
scenario. The truth is, no one can point to the Senator alone and blame
him for the distortion of the constitution or destruction of the country.
The bill the Senator voted for may have been in theoretical works decades
before he even took office. Politicians know this, and they act accordingly.

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

Can
we ever “get back to the constitution” under these conditions?
If America were talking more about the desecration of the United States
Constitution than these Marines who have much more legitimate excuses
than politicians who urinate on the Supreme Law of the Land, perhaps we
could. But as long as the Diffusion of Responsibility remains
strong in the system and is allowed to excuse the unconstitutional behavior
of the government, expect the government to continue its desecration of
the constitution.

Timothy
Baldwin is an attorney licensed to practice law in Montana (and Florida)
and focuses on constitutional issues. Baldwin graduated from the University
of West Florida in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in English
and Political Science. In 2004, Baldwin graduated from Cumberland School
of Law in Birmingham, AL with a Juris Doctorate (JD) degree. From there,
Baldwin became an Assistant State Attorney in Florida. For 2 1/2 years,
Baldwin prosecuted criminal actions and tried nearly 60 jury trials. In
2006, Baldwin started his private law practice and has maintained it since.

This
diffusion of responsibility takes place on all levels. Observe the number
of places Senator Common Fiction diffuses his responsibility in that simple
scenario. The truth is, no one can point to the Senator alone and blame
him for the distortion of the constitution or destruction of the country.